Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
No, it is part of my well considered cosmology. That being a component of another type than my historic lore.
This cosmology allows me, just as yours does not allow you, to take the miracle at Fatima as an actual and miraculous event.
Your guess, you are not giving details.
Primary sources have come down to us as such, precisely because of tradition of authorship.
For instance, the letters of Cicero are a primary source for the transition between Pompeian and Caesarian rule in Rome. But it is only such, because the letters are traditionally assigned to Cicero + no "critical scholar" had any motive for "criticism" of the traditional authorship asignment.
Archaeology can sometimes falsify tradition, but never so definitely confirm it, as to make it superfluous for a historian to depend on tradition.
You are taking one of the scholarly tradtions today and presenting ITS consensus as if consensus of all scholars there are.
See my defense of traditional accounts (there is a divergence between Sts Clement and Augustine) on authorships:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...an-Graham-Reid
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
And saying THAT "form of early Christianity" was disunified, because there were rival forms, is a bit like saying the Catholic Church under Pius XII was disunified because it was in some particulars contradicted by Salvation Army, in others by Southern Baptists, and in some by Lutherans.
The existence of AT LEAST ONE well organised Church with its persistence to later times is sufficient to make ITS tradition as credible a record as the presidential records of the US, which is a tradition of the US.
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
That construct was started by people who wanted to motivate non-adherence to parts of Bible, of NT.
Comment